RAKESHBHAI DULABHAI DHAMELIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the challenge in both the captioned applications are to the selfsame FIR, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) By these applications under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R. No.I-116 of 2016 registered before the Sarthana Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sec. 306, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Jani appearing for the applicants submits that so far as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.17475 of 2017 is concerned, he is the person who allegedy got engaged with the wife of the deceased before solemnization of their marriage and has nothing to do with the present offence and has no any direct connection with the deceased. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submits that allegations levelled in the FIR against him are that the said applicant, in connivance with the other accused persons, hatched a criminal conspiracy, and as a part of the said conspiracy, the applicant herein created a fake face book account in the name of one Kajal and sent a friendship request to the deceased. After chatting for some time, the applicant herein, showing himself as Kajal, called the deceased to meet her at a particular place and when the deceased went to meet her, the accused No.1-Ashaben (wife of the deceased) also went there and caught the deceased red-handed alleging extramarital affair with another lady. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submits that except this, no other any allegations have been levelled against the applicant. All the allegations made against the applicant appears to be general in nature. Thus, if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as true, no case is made out worth the name to prosecute the applicant and put him to trial for the offence of abeting the commission of suicide. Learned advocate Mr. Jani also submits that the applicant-accused never met the deceased at any point time and even there is nothing on record insinuating any act of instigation at the end of the applicant to the deceased proximate to the occurrence of the incident. He submits that thus, for any unknown reason, if the deceased committed suicide, then by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the applicant herein abetted the commission of suicide.